brainburn Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I'm super interested to know if there are any quotes from LDS sources clearly explaining whether revelations can "prove" something about what "really is" to the person receiving them. I'm trying to isolate whether God can grant a person a revelation which the receiver can be absolutely certain corresponds to any objective reality independent of the receiver.Has the Church effectively taken a stance on whether revelation has anything to do with objective realism? If there is such a thing as a revelatory experience that removes all doubt about what "really is", I want to know if there has been any official confirmation of this idea or if revelations, however pragmatically useful, are otherwise left in the "philosophical dark". (Plus, I should be specific: whether the quote includes philosophical jargon doesn't matter to me as long as it's evidently realist or anti-realist specifically concerning revelation.)A possible example of this sort of revelation would be the Plan of Salvation. A possible quote might sound like this:"According to the LDS view of revelation... God can grant man revelations which prove beyond any doubt to the receiver what 'really is'. Because of this fact, we can know that the Plan of Salvation works the same way for all of God's children."or"According to the LDS view of revelation... it's not possible for God to grant man revelations which prove beyond any doubt to the receiver what 'really is'. Because of this fact, we can never truly know that the Plan of Salvation works the same way for all of God's children."I'm not committing myself to these examples. Just trying to give ideas.If you still don't know what I mean, I'll be glad to explain more. And of course, in addition to my search for references, feel free to discuss any related questions. I know that there are many of you who might take issue with the premise of my questions. I'm glad to discuss those issues, too.
volgadon Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Goody, I have an Hillel Zeitlin quote I've been itching to use. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 OH gosh not this again.We have been through this already. Prophets are not philosophers thank God 3
harfad Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I'm super interested to know if there are any quotes from LDS sources clearly explaining whether revelations can "prove" something about what "really is" to the person receiving them. I'm trying to isolate whether God can grant a person a revelation which the receiver can be absolutely certain corresponds to any objective reality independent of the receiver.Absolutely. A revelation from God, or from the Spirit of truth (which is God), is in fact the only way of knowing truth and reality as it is, objectively independent of the receiver. There are many scriptural references confirming that, which have already been presented and discussed in many threads.
brainburn Posted November 25, 2012 Author Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) I addOH gosh not this again.We have been through this already. Prophets are not philosophers thank GodI added my "with or without philosophical jargon" caveat for you, mfbukowski. I think it's very easy to understand what I'm asking for. Either we can show that the prophets understand realism/anit-realism with their own clear explanations or we can't. It doesn't matter whether they are educated in the jargon. They can very well still understand the idea. Frankly, I think either you're misunderstanding what I'm asking for or you're suggesting (although probably unintentionally) that prophets are insultingly uneducated on the basic interpretations of "truth". The latter possibility seems pretty absurd to me. They are the experts on truth and are in direct contact with its true source.Can you please let me know that you understand what I'm asking for? Edited November 25, 2012 by brainburn
brainburn Posted November 25, 2012 Author Posted November 25, 2012 Absolutely. A revelation from God, or from the Spirit of truth (which is God), is in fact the only way of knowing truth and reality as it is, objectively independent of the receiver. There are many scriptural references confirming that, which have already been presented and discussed in many threads.I'm sure mfbukowski and I are interested in the best quotes you have found.
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Can you please let me know that you understand what I'm asking for?I haven't a clue.
brainburn Posted November 25, 2012 Author Posted November 25, 2012 I haven't a clue.And I haven't a clue how you've come to this conclusion because you're not explaining anything to me from my perspective. I'm trying to find common ground but you rarely unpack why you reject my proposals. I didn't type very much and I'm absolutely certain you're capable of expanding on why I'm wrong, point for point, it's just kinda difficult to get you to work with me.I really want to understand each other but it seems to be only me interested in working towards it. No mattter how careful I am to explain where I'm coming from, I can't get you to meet me anywhere and I still don't know what you actually think.
brainburn Posted November 25, 2012 Author Posted November 25, 2012 If you really don't care or something you can stop talking to me. Just know I'm waiting with an open mind and am ready to revise what I think as soon as you show me exactly where my chain of logic breaks down.
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-4830-1,00.html
brainburn Posted November 25, 2012 Author Posted November 25, 2012 Fantastic! Going to sleep on it and respond tomorrow.
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Has the Church effectively taken a stance on whether revelation has anything to do with objective realism?No. As I have said many many times, the church generally eschews the "philosophies of men" and there is no way they would take a position on a philosophical subject.
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Fantastic! Going to sleep on it and respond tomorrow.Not much to respond to- when you read the article you will realize it is not about what you might think it is. It's object is to keep kids off the internet.But that's about as close as you will get to things as they "really are". I have told you again and again that the church does not take philosophical positions but you will not believe it. Edited November 25, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 If you really don't care or something you can stop talking to me. Just know I'm waiting with an open mind and am ready to revise what I think as soon as you show me exactly where my chain of logic breaks down.It's the same old problem- you define "objective" to mean "what is real" when that is only one way of knowing a small portion of "what is real".
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 And I haven't a clue how you've come to this conclusion because you're not explaining anything to me from my perspective.You won't explain your perspective
volgadon Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 If anything, LDS concepts of truth such as those listed in the D&C posit a reality that is often different from what we take to be real. 1
Kerry A. Shirts Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 There is no such thing as an objective interpretation of one's own revelation. Even the theory that such comes from God is simply an interpretation.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Not much to respond to- when you read the article you will realize it is not about what you might think it is. It's object is to keep kids off the internet.But that's about as close as you will get to things as they "really are". I have told you again and again that the church does not take philosophical positions but you will not believe it.Sure it does. The church's philosophy via Thomas S. Monson is do not doubt anything, simply believe what yo are taught and all will be well. Ridiculously weak as it is, that is a philosophical position about dealing with reality. Anyone with half a brain can see through it, but that doesn't mean it's not philosophical. It's a philosophy of don't use your brains, use your ears and believe everything you hear from us. Obedience is a philosophy. I am simply disagreeing with your philosophy that the church does not have a philosophy is all. Edited November 25, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) No. As I have said many many times, the church generally eschews the "philosophies of men" and there is no way they would take a position on a philosophical subject.You are simply incorrect or misinformed here. Follow the Prophet is a philosophical objective. Being obedient to the church is a philosophical issue. Keeping sex to yourself until you get married and keeping things within the Lord's bounds is a philosophical issue ..... Now granted, these could also be called other kinds of issues as well, but lets quit pretending there is no philosophy of men in the church. It is loaded with the philosophy of men mingled with scripture. Having a belief in the existence of God and Jesus is most certainly a philosophical issue. Edited November 25, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts
harfad Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Has the Church effectively taken a stance on whether revelation has anything to do with objective realism?I believe it has. “Objective realism,” like the word “truth,” conveys a meaning in English regardless of whether it has become a subject of discussion in Philosophy or not. To suggest that a word or a phrase is out of bounds for discussion outside of the discipline of “philosophy” just because it has also been discussed within that discipline is nonsense. Nobody has the right to monopolise the English language. My understanding of “objective reality” is something that remains true outside the experience of the observer. The question of whether such a thing exists or not has been answered in revelation: “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;” (D&C 93:24). That defines “objective reality”. It means that such a thing exists, according to the word of the Lord. It is possible to go deeper into it, which I need not do at the present time. But in essence that is what it confirms. The answer to your question of whether the Church has “taken a stance” on that question or not is also yes. Since the Church takes the stance that scripture is true and comes from God, and God teaches truth and nothing but the truth, then you can say that it has taken a stance that that declaration of scripture (like all declarations of scripture) is true. That is the answer to your question.
thesometimesaint Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Kerry S. Shirts:Anyone whom posits Mormonism isn't a thoughtful religion isn't paying attention.Philosophy is just words to describe reality 1
harfad Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) You are simply incorrect or misinformed here. Follow the Prophet is a philosophical objective. Being obedient to the church is a philosophical issue. Keeping sex to yourself until you get married and keeping things within the Lord's bounds is a philosophical issue ..... Now granted, these could also be called other kinds of issues as well, but lets quit pretending there is no philosophy of men in the church. It is loaded with the philosophy of men mingled with scripture. Having a belief in the existence of God and Jesus is most certainly a philosophical issue. See my previous post. The fact that those subjects are, or have been, or can be, subjects of inquiry within the discipline of philosophy, does not make them "philosophical issues" for the purpose of this discussion. When we talk of "scripture mingled with the philosophies of men," we mean inspired scripture mixed up with the uninspired teachings of men. Edited November 25, 2012 by harfad
harfad Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) duplicate Edited November 25, 2012 by harfad
harfad Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 No. As I have said many many times, the church generally eschews the "philosophies of men" and there is no way they would take a position on a philosophical subject.See my post #20.
harfad Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Not much to respond to- when you read the article you will realize it is not about what you might think it is. It's object is to keep kids off the internet.But that's about as close as you will get to things as they "really are". I have told you again and again that the church does not take philosophical positions but you will not believe it.Again, see my post #20.
Recommended Posts